Thanksgiving casualty: post election observations

Watching the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump has been instructive.  As Clinton supporters and those who didn't bother to vote react, whether in the streets of our larger cities, campuses, or in the virtual public but privately owned public square known as social media, and the lazy corporate press covers it with over the top headlines, it seems increasingly clear to me that the discourse, that is the written or spoken words used to debate the topics, are also part of the increasing divide in our country.  I suspect that social media will only worsen it with its short and headline like communication style.  Indeed one of my favorite critics reminds me about stuff I post that "it's a lot to read, ....cuz."

In the last week I've watched a lot of liberals turn into bigots, that is, persons who are intolerant toward those holding different opinions.  Bigotry has been something that liberals have stood good against for a long time.  Yet, now, liberals are calling those who voted for Trump, or for a third party, racists, sexists, misogynists, and of low intelligence, among others.  And the bigotry produces a discourse full of prejudice and stereotypes.  (You could see similar kinds of things aimed at Obama voters from conservatives in 08 and 12.).  

I am not sure of the original source but I see this idea working its way into more thoughtful observations about the most essential difference between Trump voters and Clinton voters.  This was not a campaign waged on policies but on the fitness of the respective candidates to serve as president.  Clinton ran not against conservative or populist policies but Trump’s character and called him racist, sexist, crass, crude, a con man, etc.  And he called Clinton “crooked Hillary,” a “nasty woman” and threatened her with prison.  Perhaps the fundamental difference is that Trump supporters took Trump seriously and ignored what he said while Clinton supporters didn't take Trump seriously but took his utterances seriously.

Some of this is American politics.  There are no safe spaces or trigger warnings in politics.  But there is political correctness and it’s rampant on both sides of the divide.  Political correctness is commonly understood as the avoidance of words, phrases, or even ideas that might be offensive to some groups of people, especially people who have a history of being marginalized in society.   It's a laudable effort but when it squelches speech and those who dare or even inadvertently cross the line, are silenced not with arguments but with epithets, it plants the seeds for its own undermining.  Eventually the epithets weaken in their supposed moral superiority and lose their effectiveness, hence,   liberals' incredulity that anyone could support a racist, sexist, crude Trump.  This is not to say the claims are wrong, but they are dealt with by an attempt to label someone. And those labels have lost much of its sting because too few bother to talk or explain what the labels mean any more. 

Conservatives have their own political correctness.  Beware the socialist, communist, or “un-American” label if you even suggest a tax increase, or that America is not the greatest nation and endowed by God to be exceptional.  Don't question tax cuts for the job creators or even consider talking to the opposition.   Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, are ”communism.”  Add abortion to this mix as well.   Liberal political correctness is about marginalized people, conservative political correctness is about ideas that run counter to the interests of the wealthy.     

The extremists on both sides wield the cleaver of what is politically correct as a means of maintaining power.  In wielding it, there is no conversation, no debate any more.  Only ideological purity.  

If white, not- college educated, voters believe they are not doing as well economically and are discriminated against because of civil rights laws, why is that dismissed?  They are largely wrong but calling them racists is wasting an opportunity to recruit them to a better solution to their issues.  Name-calling turns them away from considering those ideas.  It also makes liberals look intolerant, which is what liberals claim not to be. The current liberal policy seems to be to make college more affordable for the not-college educated.  This shows a major misunderstanding  of the rich occupational cultures that make up much of working class reality and identity.  Trump merely  said, “I'll bring those jobs back”  and while he probably can’t they understand his response as "he gets it" and Clinton doesn’t.  Trump won, Clinton lost.

Making a choice had never been so complicated

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, May 11, 2008

May 4. In less than 48 hours the polls open for the much anticipated Democrat Presidential Primary. As has been pointed out endlessly, Hoosier votes count in this one.

Although I am not a lifelong Indiana resident (this is my ninth Presidential vote, fifth in Indiana), I have lived in states that had late primaries, so I am used to having my choices for the November ballot selected by others. That fact never bothered me. I just shrugged my shoulders and went about my business. The eventual nominee has never been my primary choice. In the past I would naively cast a vote for a candidate who could not win the nomination hoping to influence the platform. As I said, “naive.” Were I still so naïve I would ask for a Republican ballot and vote for Ron Paul.

As I write this I do not know who I am going to vote for. A couple of weeks ago I decided that I’d probably just flip a coin the morning of the election. I mean, why not? The policy differences between the two Democrat hopefuls are slight. My list of pros and cons for each candidate balance each other out, closer than the Guam caucuses.

The narrow test of who is offering “me” the best deal, has never been my test. No, I embraced those high school citizenship classes too eagerly, I really think we should be choosing who is best for the nation, and what is best for the nation is not necessarily always the best for me. At the same time, the historic and sociological implications of this election are not lost on me. In one sense, any vote contributes to an historic outcome. We are either going to elect the first African American, the first woman, or the oldest to the Presidency. One the other hand, I’d like to contribute, to be part of, in my small way, the historic outcome. Hence, I want to vote for the eventual winner.

Normally, endorsements mean nothing to me. I think they say more about the endorser than it does the endorsee. Endorsers are more odds makers than anything else; until Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Obama. That endorsement made me pause. Never before has any endorsement had such an impact on me.

I think Sen. Obama is what I want our president to be. I like his current advertisement where he characterizes Washington as unwilling to take on the hard questions and solve them, instead opting for political gimmicks like the gas tax holiday proposed by Sens. McCain and Clinton. At the same time, Sen. Clinton is a fighter and is willing to do whatever it takes to win. I understand that is part of why Republicans best Democrats because Democrats are often too idealistic. “Too idealistic” or “unrealistic’ is what many see in Sen. Obama. I share some of that skepticism, too. Argh!!!

Election day. As I drove into Roselawn Cemetery to vote early this morning, I thought to myself, “how fitting for what has become a “grave” decision for me.” I had an easier time proposing marriage! When asked which ballot I wanted, I replied “Demopublican or Republicrat.” I was told they would have those in November but right now, only the donkey or elephant. Along with everyone else, I asked for a Democrat ballot. I took my ballot over to the little stand and there it was, the “choice.” I quickly ran through the others races and in a minute or so am back to the “choice.”

I noticed others come in and get out pretty quick, while I stared and pondered the “choice.” I began to worry that there might be a time limit on how long I could stare at my ballot.

Finally I made a choice. I decided to pretend that Indiana was the first primary; that the previous elections had not happened. Who would I vote for if I got to be one of the first to make a choice instead of one of the last. And sure enough, as my past favorites end up, I voted for the Indiana loser (though, strangely, Sen. Obama seemed to win Tuesday overall--his narrow defeat in Indiana viewed as something of a win.) Democrat politics are more complicated than Republican politics; though 24% of Republicans still voted against Sen McCain.

I thought both Democrat victory speeches Tuesday night went a long way toward building a united front for the eventual Democrat nominee. I hope Indiana doubles the number voting in the November election.

We’re No. 1 in the U.S. and we demand the best

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 20 April 2008

As a sociologist I am typically fascinated more by people’s responses to events than the event itself. Sen. Obama’s recent remarks given at a private fundraiser is a good example. As is well known by now, Sen. Obama, donning his sociology cap, tried to answer a question about rural, small town Americans. He suggested they were bitter because their local economies are in a shambles and no one pays them any attention.

Instead of discussing this sociological insight into rural America, Senator Obama’s opponents have instead attacked him as an “elitist” and out of touch with regular Americans.

Fascinating. I am not going to defend or even explain Sen. Obama’s remarks. I do want to explore the charge of elitism.

What exactly does elitism mean? According to Dictionary.com, elitism has several meanings: 1) practice of or belief in rule by an elite: 2) consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group; and 3) the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Aren’t the same folks accusing Sen. Obama of being an elitist also the same ones who suggest he is not fit to be President because he has insufficient experience? All three major candidates work very hard to make their resumés look the best, the longest, with exaggerated claims of legislative daring do, avoiding sniper fire, and brandishing their ignorance of the Middle East. Each one argues they are the most qualified and they believe they are the best to rule. And if experience isn’t enough, we’ll go bowling, knock back a shot and a beer, and appear on late night comedy shows, to show we are hip, regular, and in touch with the “real” people (even if it is just once an election cycle). Does it seem to you that those accusing Sen. Obama of elitism fit the first definition of elitism, too?

If Senators Clinton and McCain are not elitists, according to the second definition, then they must not be proud of belonging to a select or favored group. I wonder which group it is? The U.S. Senate? Both do want out, to join an even more exclusive club (so does Sen. Obama), so are they elitists or not? Perhaps Senators Clinton and McCain are not proud to be Americans? If that were true, they would probably be disqualified. Both have trafficked in suggesting Obama is anti-American, or a lacks pride in belonging to a select or favored group (Americans, or Christians, or Democrats, or Republicans). That then seems a catch-22 doesn’t it? If he is proud to be American he is an elitist. If he is not, then he is anti-American.

Let’s examine the third definition: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Hmm. This sounds strangely similar to another idea: meritocracy or (again according to Dictionary.com): an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. All three candidates are over-achievers. McCain, a Naval Academy graduate, Clinton, a Wellesley graduate, and Obama a Columbia graduate. Are we to believe that McCain and Clinton would prefer winning the presidency due to their family connections?

I don’t think a charge of elitism is going to make much difference. I think Americans, in general, are elitists. We demand the best, the elite in everything. Everyone wants the best doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, quarterbacks, and presidents. Chanting “We’re Number One” is not common anywhere but in the U.S. That seems pretty elitist to me.

Sen. Obama may be an elitist. But are we to believe those leading the chorus of those charges are not also elitists? Do they fit the opposite of the meaning of elitism? If they accuse Sen. Obama of being an elitist but are them selves elitists, doesn’t that make them “elite” hypocrites?

anti-gay, anti-catholic, anti-nonchristian are not anti-american

It is remarkable that in the brouhaha over the guilt by association hysteria regarding Presidential hopefuls McCain and Obama (Clinton is no doubt next, she won't want to be left out), that the right and left just talk right past one another. From the left, a good example is Marc Ambinder Hagee, Wright, Parsley, Fallwell, Obama and McCain who equates what Wright says with Hagee and Parsley. The problem is that while the left may see these as equal, the right doesn't. The right views Wright as "anti-american" while the others are anti-muslim or anti-catholic. That is not the same thing. Here is a good example of how the right views this stuff, from Atlas Shrugs Obama's Pastor is "A TOTAL HATER" The last line of this thing is that the Reverend Wright is anti-white and anti-american.

I conclude that from the right it is NOT anti-american to be anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-black, anti-muslim, anti-catholic, but it is anti-american to be anti-white. And from the left, it is anti-american to be bigoted. That might be a nice ideal, but I think it is quite American to be bigoted. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying, that bigtory is all over America. It is about as anti-american as loving one's car.

Why won't the DNC pay for a do-over in Michigan and Florida

Professor Bob Guell, Economics asked that I post this for discussion:

The noted Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said of the Palestians, "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." The same, I think, should be said of the Democratic Party. Take the question of the "do-over" for Michigan and Florida. Both states are happy to hold primaries in May or June but refuse to pick up the tab. The DNC refuses to pick up the tab. How big is the tab? about $25,000,000 per state. This from a party whose leading candidates are capable of raising more than $80,000,000 a month even when they are limited to $2,000 per person.

This Presidential election is there's for the taking yet they are going to run the risk of a redux of Chicago 68 rather than coming up with $50,000,000 to run an election that will decide who wins. MORONIC. The only way they lose to McCain (who I support btw) is by eating each other alive.....and that is exactly what they seem bent on doing.

Is gender and race no longer an issue in Presidential Politics?

As a sociologist I thought the first woman or African American to be President would have been a republican. Think Margaret Thatcher.

Fact is, research on women and African Americans who have made it to the top power positions in the military, economy, and the executive branch of government make tremendous sacrifices that white men don't.

So Condoleeza Rice is the perfect example. She has no family, she is not married.

Hillary Clinton, however, has not sacrificed. She has made it in a largely male world, law, but not by sacrificing. She is the feminist dream in so many ways.

Obama, however, is winning the race for the democratic nomination. He, however, fits more the profile of the minority member (race or gender minority) who makes it to the top of the powerful. Although he is not a republican, he is impecaably educated at the pinnacle of white powerful connections, Harvard. He has also shed all trappings of what frighten whites about blacks.

Black women also indicate that they experience more discrimination as women than as African American. Tell that to the too many African American men in prison, but that is another story.

So, bottom line is this: Clinton challenges the prevailing gender beliefs more than Obama does about race beliefs. Hence, Obama is the more acceptable (and less threatenening). The early arms length that other Black leaders and Black voters held him, probably helped him tremendously among white voters. I'm referring here to the whole "he isn't black enough" junk that came out about him early in the campaign. You don't hear much about that any more.

Florida primaries

Why is it that when Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada, the pundits pointed out that over 2/3s of dems DIDN'T vote for her. But when McCain wins SC and Florida, they don't point out the same thing.

Now, Clinton outright won Florida, as meaningless as it was, with 51% of the dem vote. No one notes that or that nearly 2/3s of republicans voted against McCain.

Liberal media bias.